Job Discussion Forums

[Jbhughes]

The other day a teenage student asked me to convert the following into reported speech:

He said "I didn't play tennis yesterday because I had to clean the car."

So I wrote:

He said he hadn't played tennis the day before because he had had to clean the car.

Subsequently, the student replied that his high school teacher had said that this sentence is wrong. The teacher had said the correct answer uses only one had.

The student wrote:

He said he hadn't played tennis the day before because he had to clean the car.

I asked if the teacher had given a reason for this usage but the student was unable to recall any.

At this point, given that reported speech was nothing to do with our lesson (a listening and reading skills lesson as I recall), that I didn't want to create any bad feeling between the student and their high school teacher, that my only basis for my answer is 'because it's what I say' with no rule to help the student (not to mention that I've never taught reported speech before!) I decided to tell the student and other interested class members that I would get back to them with the answer and more information at a later date.

Further to the lesson, I've thumbed some books in the school library and scoured the internet to no avail (well, actually I've learnt a lot of rules about reported speech, so it's been quite useful!).

Is my initial sentence correct or the high school teacher's?

Put another way: when we change sentences using 'had to' (past external necessity) from quoted speech to reported speech do we use the past perfect 'had had to' or simply retain the past simple 'had to' ?

If there is a more complex rule at play here, I would also like to hear about it.

Many thanks patient linguists!

[Guy Courchesne]

Here's a discussion that follows the topic...the subordinate clause being the issue discussed.

http://thegrammarexchange.infopop.cc/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/340600179/m/880100473

[killthebuddha]

"Good. Item seven. The had had and that that problem. Lady Cavendish, weren�t you working on this?�

Lady Cavendish stood up and gathered her thoughts. �Indeed. The uses of had had and that that have to be strictly controlled; they can interrupt the imaginotransference quite dramatically, causing readers to go back over the sentence in confusion, something we try to avoid.�

�Go on.�

It�s mostly an unlicensed-usage problem. At the last count David Copperfield alone had had had had sixty three times, all but ten unapproved. Pilgrim�s Progress may also be a problem due to its had had/that that ratio.�

So what�s the problem in Progress?�

That that had that that ten times but had had had had only thrice. Increased had had usage had had to be overlooked, but not if the number exceeds that that that usage.�

Hmm,� said the Bellman, �I thought had had had had TGC�s approval for use in Dickens? What�s the problem?�

Take the first had had and that that in the book by way of example,� said Lady Cavendish. �You would have thought that that first had had had had good occasion to be seen as had, had you not? Had had had approval but had had had not; equally it is true to say that that that that had had approval but that that other that that had not.�

So the problem with that other that that was that�?�

�That that other-other that that had had approval.�

Okay� said the Bellman, whose head was in danger of falling apart like a chocolate orange, �let me get this straight: David Copperfield, unlike Pilgrim�s Progress, had had had, had had had had. Had had had had TGC�s approval?�

There was a very long pause. �Right,� said the Bellman with a sigh, �that�s it for the moment. I�ll be giving out assignments in ten minutes. Session�s over � and let�s be careful out there."
� Jasper Fforde (The Well of Lost Plots)

[Kiwi303]

I think you could find this is also an area of UK vs US conflict over English grammatical forms.


Commonwealth/NZ English as I learnt it has Had Had as a suitable grammatical form for reported past imperitive modes.


Immediate imperative: I must clean the car. He must clean the car.

Past personal imperative: I had to clean the car.

Past reported imperative: He had had to clean the car.

[killthebuddha]

Dear Jbhughes,

It seems Guy Courchesne has answered your more immediate question. If you'll look at the link he provided the question seems to center around whether you must "back-shift" (revert to the perfect tense) for reported speech. Someone there has provided a link showing the exceptions to this "rule." In short, you could have saved yourself the trouble by reporting in the simple past of the original statement.

However, the best discussion in Guy's link focuses on the primary purpose / function of the past perfect tense--past perfect is for distinguishing earlier events from later related events. You're running into difficulty here because your events are contemporaneous. However, "because" is also considered a subordinating conjunction, and as such it may lend "primacy" to the main clause for the precedent I've seen elsewhere--that in such an event and for the sake of preserving the past perfect timeline distinctions amongst related events, simple past verb forms are often used in subordinate clauses instead of past perfect tenses where the meaning is clear. (I think it may be in Swan's Practical English Usage. I'll have a copy tomorrow and can report back. And depending upon the verbs and the time-related events, even this convenience won't always hold.)

And you're also creating another difficulty, if only because you're using "have to" for the modal "must." (Modals already have their own special form of convolution) It's necessary, of course, but for the above reason(s) you can at least avoid the apparent redundancy and added confusion.

--ktb

[wangdaning]

Both verbs play and have need to go to the past perfect. Had not played and had had are correct.

Both work however. I cannot see how one could misinterpret the students answer. Following the rule the past simple always needs to be put back to perfect, but when we are talking we don't always do this.

Important point, don't let your students get caught up in stupid rules that native teachers don't follow.

[killthebuddha]

Jbhughes,

There are rules and there are exceptions. Underlying these are policy and practice as per purpose and clarity. Again, I hope you'll read Guy's link for the sensible discussion re: the purposive element of the past perfect. As for the "binding rule" requiring rendition of simple past tense statements into perfect past for reported speech, consider these:


"In indirect speech, a speaker's past tenses are often reported using past perfect tenses...

However, past perfect tenses are not always used, especially if the time relationships are clear without a change from past to past perfect."

(Michael Swan, Practical English Usage, 3d, 278)


and

" �sometimes in spoken English, no change is made in the noun clause verb, especially if the speaker is reporting something immediately or soon after it was said"

(Betty Azar, Understanding and Using English Grammar, 3d, 254)


and

"Backshift of Simple Past and Past Progressive is optional if they cannot be mistakenly taken for backshift of Present Tense. So backshift is not necessary if there is a time expression indicating past."

http://palmoon.net/7/topic-620-89.html


One "rule" that controls here is the proximity of the reporter to the reported speech, to the event, or to both. Another "rule" is whether the time reference is understood / preserved without past perfect reversion. Try other examples and you'll find other "rules" (or are these exceptions?). What matters, IMHO, is that you don't unnecessarily compromise the over-arching advantage that the past perfect tense affords: clarity through the distinction between earlier events and later related events.

--ktb


p.s. Regarding your choice, and relating back to my earlier post's reference to the possible verb agreement exception for subordinate clauses, there's this:


"Simplification of perfect and progressive verbs:

Simple past verb forms are used quite often in subordinate clauses instead of present perfect and past perfect tenses, if the meaning is clear...

Exceptions:

These rules do not usually apply to clauses beginning 'because,' 'although,' 'since' or 'as' (meaning 'because'), or to non-identifying relative clauses."

(Swan, 575)



There was never any question whether your version was correct, but there was the question of whether the teacher's alternative was also permitted. Swan says the alternative is (usually) prohibited for your conjunction.

[fladude]

"had had" might be good Grammar, but its bad writing. I try to discourage bad writing even when its grammatically correct.

[fladude]

"Had had" might be good grammar, but its bad writing. I try to discourage bad writing even when its grammatically correct. Presumably the goal is to teach people to communicate effectively and if you go around writing "had had" or "do do" or something to that effect then your writing won't be up to snuff.

[artemisia]

Really? Is the second of these two sentences an example of bad writing then? (With or without italics).

I know that is a bad idea.

I know that that is a bad idea.

I'd use it for emphasising what I know about 'that' (as opposed to what I might do). Sentences composed mostly of verbs are not great though, I'd agree, but one verb might be emphasised or provide greater meaning to the sentence in conjunction with the other, such as putting in an auxiliary: "If people do do this (against all advice) then ....
It's more common in spoken English though.

[johnslat]

" . . . . because he had had to clean the car."

Just use the contraction - sounds much better:

" . . . because he'd had to clean the car.

Regards,
John

[fladude]

[artemisia]

[johnslat]

Dear artemisia,

True - but I think that "don't use contractions - oops, just used one - in formal writing " dictum has become much more relaxed in recent years, perhaps due, at least in part, to the use of so much business e-mail correspondence.

Besides, the example given didn't really sound as though it had been taken from a formal writing context.

One thing I often tell my students is to try to use contractions when speaking English since not using time is generally indicative of the speaker's being a "non-native speaker."
Have you ever noticed, on TV and in the movies, when the writer wants to emphasize the "foreignness" of an English speaker, the character seldom, if ever, uses contractions?
For example, I don't know whether you're familiar with the TV show, "NCIS." One of the main characters on that show, Ziva David, is supposedly Israeli. She NEVER uses contractions, but always says sentences such as "I do not know" and "I have not seen him."

Regards,
John

[artemisia]

I think I've watched 'NCIS' though I get confused with the other lettered shows. At first I thought of CSI (Miami, New York, LA?? Other cities??). At one time all of them were programmed at exactly the same time on different channels which I got fed up with.
Anyway, I'll keep an eye (ear) out for it and check it out sometime.

It's often a battle to get students to use contractions when speaking but when they do, I find it improves their listening skills. I point this out to them because otherwise they only seem to be able to 'hear' clearly enunciated words. Sometimes I think non-native English speakers (and maybe this is true of other languages, too) like to enunciate every word for fear of not being understood. Once students have a reasonable grasp of the basics, I'll introduce the idea of rhythm and that's it's quite hard to listen to or follow those who don't use the natural patterns of intonation, stress, pauses etc. of which the use of contractions is an integral part. With any language, the brain seems take a while to 'hear' and process information if it's out of sync with the normal rhythm, even if you understand all the words individually. So often you have to ask someone to repeat something and then you get it, and then that person (probably annoyed) will often say "But that's what I just said!!"